33% surprises me. I would have thought it was more like 80%. Not too long ago the iMac was basically the only credible AIO in the game.

Indeed.

I flat out don't believe it actually. I've heard this same thing before from the same source but I've never heard anyone say *what* other "all-in-ones" there are.

HP makes the touch smart series, that's one. Who the hell even makes another all-in-one?

When the iMac came out it was pretty much the only all-in-one there was so they had 100% of the market. Where is the list of Windows based all-in-ones that are so popular that they nudged Apple from the top spot all the way down to 30%? Why haven't we even heard of these mythical computers that are so good they bested Apple's flagship product?

I think this is just another cooked up statistic. Perhaps some fortune 500 company buys enough of the HP product to make it look like there is a competitive market when there isn't.

Edit: It's also very very suspicious that both this article and the previous one I read six months ago are basically more about announcing new products than they are about market share per se. This is an ad for a couple of new all-in-ones coupled with some dodgy statistics about the "market" that probably doesn't really exist.

33% surprises me. I would have thought it was more like 80%. Not too long ago the iMac was basically the only credible AIO in the game.

It sure is to me. Once I laid eyes on my 27 inch iMac, it was love at first sight. Put off the buying decision for a few weeks, but it preyed on my mind, and I kept going back and looking, and touching, and using. Now that I have had this for about five months, I am still supremely happy with it, and I expect it to be a long relationship. I love a gloss screen, and others love matte. Personal preference takes the day.

Do you do any gaming on it by chance? I am looking to upgrade my old PC, and am strongly considering either a MB Pro or an iMac. Would love the portability obviously, but just not sure if an MB Pro would be beefy enough to handle some moderate gaming (not Crysis or anything).

While not a 'gamer' per se, I do, now and again, play Call of Duty, GTA, Half Life, Second Life, Bio Shock, Quake and the like all without any problems and all at maxed out graphics settings. Some run on the Cinema display fine some prefer the built in screen for maximum performance. This is a 15" MBPro i7 with 8 GIGs of RAM and a 1 TB drive. Only owned Mac Pros and MBPros, I have never had an iMac so I cannot compare. What is weird my MBPro is better than any of the the Mac Pros I've had for games ... perhaps because the graphics cards I have always used on Mac Pros were chosen for real time video rendering in FCPro not gaming.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

The MacPro is complete overkill for anything except video production and (maybe) Art & Design. You have to be a very unique user to get any real use out of a Mac Pro besides simple bragging rights.

There are a lot of people need them for those exact requirements so I hope Apple keep them going. The irony is those are the very people that kept Apple going throughout the bad years and would be the most hurt if Apple concentrated only on consumers now.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

The 33% only goes to prove that all-in-ones are a failure. You see, Apple owns less than 10% of the world's market, and 33% of that is iMac, this proves that due to the LACK of Apple desktop options, Apple customers resort to an iMac.

Got it? Now go and change the article.

I was wondering the same thing...does this represent the great success of the iMac or the lack of another viable option from Apple? If you decide you want a Mac, and don't want the underpowered mini (a fine machine for basic tasks) or the very expensive Mac Pro, you don't have a choice. If all the PC manufacturers stopped making headless desktops and only shipped all-in-ones, Apple's 33% would quickly drop to someething closer to its 10% overall marketshare. The 33% figure is a useless statistic because it ignores all the other variables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent

I'm curious why you don't like the all-in-one format. I see some shortcomings but went ahead and bought two for my kids, and they now never leave their desks.

Other than the glossy vs matte debate, there the simple lack of choice of screen sizes, aspect ratios, or other features (the monitor connected to my mini also has a TV tuner so it can serve double-duty).

Also, I've not seen the cost breakdowns for the iMac specifically, but generally the screen is one of the most expensive components of a computer system. (In the iPad I believe it's the 2nd largest contributor the component cost.) Why do I have to replace it everytime I want to upgrade my computer?

If the iMac was more expandable or user serviceable (internal hard drives, graphics cards, etc) this would perhaps be less of an issue because I'd get more useful life out of the computer, and therefore more use of of the monitor that comes with the computer. Lack of expandability means I'm having to upgrade my computer more often, which in turn means I'm also forced to get a new monitor. Not only is this financially wasteful, but for a company that prides itself on its environmental record, this is also environmentally wasteful.

Of course, this is great for Apple's bottom line. In the past, when Apple sold non-AIO desktops, I've either used the same monitor through at least one CPU replacement (IIsi and Quadra 630), or have extended the life of the CPU by upgrading it's components (Beige G3). By only selling the iMac, Apple is forcing you to: 1) buy new computers from them more often, and 2) forcing you to buy a new monitor everytime you want to replace your CPU. Yes, the iMac is very nice system, but very limited and wasteful of resources (financial and environmental).

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips

A MacBook Pro i7 plus an Apple monitor sitting waiting on your desk is a pretty sweet combo ... mobility by just yanking out the monitor connection and a work station when at your desk. As a long time Mac Pro user I find this a great compromise now I have scaled down.

Playing with numbers again. Although it looks quite impressive, 33% for all in one sales is merely a blip for the entire operating system/hardware market share. With Apple having a mere 5% share, it's quite obvious that Apple has not gained any ground since the inception of the iMat and Pro lines. These numerical breakdowns are just laughable. Specially the reaction from users taking this as a win or gain for Apple.

When it comes to marketshare, China and India together have 40% population marketshare, the USA, like Apple, only has 5% population marketshare.

So, should the USA embark on the mother of all baby booms to seize 50% population marketshare, thinning out its resources, thus lowering the average American living standard to the level of the average Chinese and Indians living in rural poverty?

Or should the 5% USA "blip" focus on maintaining its high quality lifestyle which that 40% in India and China can only dream of?

When it comes to significant marketshare, yours is a large slice of the Appleinsider trolls: just like those beige PC box shifters, it's of little consequence.
I've already given you far more attention than you deserve.

There is the QUAD-core i7 Mac Mini server, perhaps that's closer in performance to the iMacs.
Unfortunately it doesn't have the discrete graphics of the high end non-server Mac Mini.

Performance-wise, the mini is a laptop, not a desktop. All of it's components are laptop components. So while the names of the components may be similar to the iMac's, they are lower powered versions. Lower performance CPUs, GPUs, hard drives (slow, limited capacity laptop hard drives). Not only are they less powerful, they sometimes cost more than an equivalently performing desktop component (HDs being the prime example).

Imagine if Apple made the mini's case a little bitter and put the iMac's components inside it. For about the same price, you could have a much more powerful machine.

While not a 'gamer' per se, I do, now and again, play Call of Duty, GTA, Half Life, Second Life, Bio Shock, Quake and the like all without any problems and all at maxed out graphics settings. Some run on the Cinema display fine some prefer the built in screen for maximum performance. This is a 15" MBPro i7 with 8 GIGs of RAM and a 1 TB drive. Only owned Mac Pros and MBPros, I have never had an iMac so I cannot compare. What is weird my MBPro is better than any of the the Mac Pros I've had for games ... perhaps because the graphics cards I have always used on Mac Pros were chosen for real time video rendering in FCPro not gaming.

Gotcha. That's pretty much the level of gaming I'm looking to do. Thanks so much for the reply.

HP makes the touch smart series, that's one. Who the hell even makes another all-in-one?

When the iMac came out it was pretty much the only all-in-one there was so they had 100% of the market. Where is the list of Windows based all-in-ones that are so popular that they nudged Apple from the top spot all the way down to 30%? Why haven't we even heard of these mythical computers that are so good they bested Apple's flagship product?

Did everyone just skip over my other post when I said there are $350 and $500 AIO being advertised in best buy ads every week?

Compaq, Gateway, HP, and Dell (even Sony on occasion although they are around $700-$800).

$350 or $400 computers sell. Thats where the market comes from. Bottom of the barrel POS computers. Just like Android's numbers- from Free and $50 phones.

It sure is to me. Once I laid eyes on my 27 inch iMac, it was love at first sight. Put off the buying decision for a few weeks, but it preyed on my mind, and I kept going back and looking, and touching, and using. Now that I have had this for about five months, I am still supremely happy with it, and I expect it to be a long relationship. I love a gloss screen, and others love matte. Personal preference takes the day.

No doubt. I liked it so much I bought two. One for home, one for office. I can't tell you how much more productive it has made me and the "Holy crap thats a big screen" comments from coworkers.

While I like the look of the iMac, the all-in-one paradigm does not appeal to me. My next Mac will be a Mac Pro. I'll buy refurb or used if necessary.

Good choice. I've always bought towers so I could expand, keep current display etcetera. Even though I hardly do much video editing, and so much Aperture photo stuff I love it that I can throw anything at my MP. That, and the fact that I dislike glossy screens. I know, of topic, but still relevant as the iMac only comes in glossy. With the iPhone it's ok since it's such a small screen, but I still don't like the glossy iPad screen. But the device is so great, there's no alternative; I take it as it comes. With the iMac, I am happy they also (used to) make the cinema displays. If mine were to break down, I don't know what I'd do. Possibly search for the 30" Dell - cough cough.

I would certainly hope not! And since the Xserve got EOL'd I can only presume they will keep the MP. What is Pixar using, still Sun boxes? Their Renderman software runs on OSX as well, so if they don't sell that many MP's they could use that... There still is a market for it, just as Steve said it would with his truck analogy.

The 33% only goes to prove that all-in-ones are a failure. You see, Apple owns less than 10% of the world's market, and 33% of that is iMac, this proves that due to the LACK of Apple desktop options, Apple customers resort to an iMac.

Got it? Now go and change the article.

Apple is one hardware computer maker, Windows has 200 of them. 33% given that fact is impressive, and it isn't because of any failure. It's merely because anyone who wants an all in one buy an iMac, and most computer buys want a laptop.

?..the company is considering axing the Mac Pro lineup and sparing the resources currently devoted to it.

1. Who said anything about Apple considering axing the Mac Pro lineup? I keep on reading articles on AI but dont see anything other than assuptions, wild guesses. Source please.

2. "sparing the resources currently devoted to it" What resources? Making assumptions, again, source please.

3. What's up with the images from the original article in the forum lately? It used to load faster on a crappy 3G or Edge link without them... I could simply tick on the 'xx comments' on the homepage without loading the original article.

...there the simple lack of choice of screen sizes, aspect ratios, or other features...
the screen is one of the most expensive components of a computer system.
...
Why do I have to replace it everytime I want to upgrade my computer?

If the iMac was more expandable or user serviceable (internal hard drives, graphics cards, etc) this would perhaps be less of an issue because I'd get more useful life out of the computer, and therefore more use of of the monitor that comes with the computer. Lack of expandability means I'm having to upgrade my computer more often, which in turn means I'm also forced to get a new monitor.
...

By only selling the iMac, Apple is forcing you to: 1) buy new computers from them more often, and 2) forcing you to buy a new monitor everytime you want to replace your CPU. Yes, the iMac is very nice system, but very limited and wasteful of resources (financial and environmental).

The elephant in the room is that a laptop is also an all in one with a fixed screen, etc etc.
It seems people prefer this way of buying computers - laptops are now beginning to outsell desktops.

Consumers and businesses tend to replace rather than upgrade, generally consumers don't have the awareness of how to upgrade a desktop. Businesses may find it cheaper to replace a desktop instead of committing technicians to purchasing parts and upgrading the insides of dozens to hundreds of PCs.

Granted, there is the advantage of reusing a separate monitor; screens on an environmentally conscious all in one an be recycled, perhaps even reused to repair broken or refurbished units.
A computer designed with the environment in mind can be resold if working, otherwise sent for recycling thus reducing its environmental impact.
Consider also the environmental impact of making unnecessarily large containers, components likely to remain unused, for PCs.

The G4 Cube had desktop components yet didn't do well. If Apple felt it was worthwhile making a Mini with desktop components I'm certain they would do so.

By only selling the iMac, Apple is forcing you to: 1) buy new computers from them more often....

Except that my iMac has given me over 4 years of trouble free service (& counting). I never got anywhere near that when I ran pc's, so whilst it cost more to buy up front, no need for replacement bits combined with resale value make it great value for me

You make a valid point, still, I remember they moved away from IBM when they could get the 3GHz (on time, or ever) and Apple found a new supplier. Do you think they will axe the MP if Intel cannot deliver? I understand it's only a part of a decision like that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Uh, what do you mean, "what resources"? You don't think it takes time, money, and effort to build a Mac Pro? We don't have Mac Pro orchards.

Of course. But nothing like their other products, ie the iMac got a new form factor, what, 5 times already? The Mac Pro everyone thinks they don't sell because they don't redesign it. It does have way different internals, but I would think the resources devoted to the MP hardly stand out from their other products. Especially if they keep the same box, only update it with a fast processor and TB.

Good choice. I've always bought towers so I could expand, keep current display etcetera. Even though I hardly do much video editing, and so much Aperture photo stuff I love it that I can throw anything at my MP. That, and the fact that I dislike glossy screens. I know, of topic, but still relevant as the iMac only comes in glossy. With the iPhone it's ok since it's such a small screen, but I still don't like the glossy iPad screen. But the device is so great, there's no alternative; I take it as it comes. With the iMac, I am happy they also (used to) make the cinema displays. If mine were to break down, I don't know what I'd do. Possibly search for the 30" Dell - cough cough.

Trouble is that I don't think there are many people around like you - eg who specifically want a MacPro. I would suggest you are becoming a rare breed, bordering on unique.

Apple aren't trying to wind people up by canceling lines that aren't selling (eg Xserve), they are just doing what any prudent business does which is concentrating on what it does well.

Admittedly, canceling the MacPro seems an odd move, as surely they are selling more than enough to make money on but in a world that requires companies to constantly upgrade and redesign everything, and considering the current MacPro case is 6-7 years old (?), redesigning and retooling might be enough to not make it a worthwhile investment.

Apple must be a very odd place when you have iPhone teams who turn in billions for the company, whilst some poor guys in a back office make a case for selling 50k MacPros a year.

(BTW Can you name another machine that has had a case design last as long as the MacPro?)

I'm surprised this number is so low. I could see if 33% of all OEM desktops we're Apple's iMacs, but I have a hard time believing that 2 out of 3 AIO desktop computers are not from Apple. Since we know Apple dominates the higher end of the PC market in unit sales and takes the lion's share of profits for the world's industry I can only assume there are a bunch of sub-$700 AIO desktops that I've never heard of that are sold in excessive numbers. What am I missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

And some, like me, are deemed Apple hating trolls and ignored despite owning an iPad, working on a Mac and planning an iMac to replace my aging Windows PC.

Watching Oprah doesn't make you a feminist.

PS: I would never put you in the same grimy category as I put Slappy.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The MacPro is complete overkill for anything except video production and (maybe) Art & Design. You have to be a very unique user to get any real use out of a Mac Pro besides simple bragging rights.

Not sure if Art and Design really needs Mac Pro either. If design includes CAD, the likes of Solidworks (if Solidworks ever comes to Mac OS) can already run quite well on laptops. Ain't no artist and therefore cannot think of a computationally intensive art app that requires 12-core processing. Photography apps run quite well on iMacs and the like. So it's really primarily about video and scientific apps. What else?

Trouble is that I don't think there are many people around like you - eg who specifically want a MacPro. I would suggest you are becoming a rare breed, bordering on unique.

Apple aren't trying to wind people up by canceling lines that aren't selling (eg Xserve), they are just doing what any prudent business does which is concentrating on what it does well.

Admittedly, canceling the MacPro seems an odd move, as surely they are selling more than enough to make money on but in a world that requires companies to constantly upgrade and redesign everything, and considering the current MacPro case is 6-7 years old (?), redesigning and retooling might be enough to not make it a worthwhile investment.

Apple must be a very odd place when you have iPhone teams who turn in billions for the company, whilst some poor guys in a back office make a case for selling 50k MacPros a year.

(BTW Can you name another machine that has had a case design last as long as the MacPro?)

All valid points, including me becoming a rare breed - hehe.

Maybe I cannot believe the MP gets axed as I'd think they would be using it themselves. Anyone know what Apple uses as their development machines? I know their data centres run Sun boxes, amongst others. But yeah, the MP wont be a cash-cow. It's also similar priced as a more or less similar Dell (as far as one can compare the two).

From the top of my head the G5, single 1.6GHz, was released in September 2003 (I still have a working one, but stored in the attic) and can't think of a tower computer with the same design, no. Although Nokia phones come to mind. Yep, lame.

The elephant in the room is that a laptop is also an all in one with a fixed screen, etc etc.
It seems people prefer this way of buying computers - laptops are now beginning to outsell desktops.

Consumers and businesses tend to replace rather than upgrade, generally consumers don't have the awareness of how to upgrade a desktop. Businesses may find it cheaper to replace a desktop instead of committing technicians to purchasing parts and upgrading the insides of dozens to hundreds of PCs.

Granted, there is the advantage of reusing a separate monitor; screens on an environmentally conscious all in one an be recycled, perhaps even reused to repair broken or refurbished units.
A computer designed with the environment in mind can be resold if working, otherwise sent for recycling thus reducing its environmental impact.
Consider also the environmental impact of making unnecessarily large containers, components likely to remain unused, for PCs.

The G4 Cube had desktop components yet didn't do well. If Apple felt it was worthwhile making a Mini with desktop components I'm certain they would do so.

Laptops being all-in-one is a moot point in this discussion. They are that way out of necessity, not as a design choice. They are all-in-one as a secondary effect of a primary requirement, to be portable. A laptop without a screen would be kind of pointless, don't you think?

Whether consumers would ever upgrade is one thing. But if they think at the time of purchase they want the abiilty to upgrade (even if they never do), then that becomes a factor. Obviously, the biggest deciding factor of Windows vs Mac is the OS itself. But I would not be surprised if configuration was the 2nd or 3rd biggest deciding factor when choosing a computer. If you think you want to be able to add a 2nd internal hard drive, upgrade the video card, etc, you will gravitate towards a Windows PC option.

As for business, at my company, you'd be right about not usually upgrading computers. But they DO repair. Failed hard drive? Swap it out. Video card acting up? Replace it, even scavange one from another computer. And, most importantly to this conversion, if your monitor dies, they simply grab another one to replace it. With an iMac, if this happens I either have to get a whole new computer or my computer is out for repair for several days, minimum. That kind of distruption to my productivity is unacceptable.

With environmental issues. Yes, recycycling is an option. But even if every iMac is eventually recycled (and we know that is no where near reality), there are still enviromental impacts from the container, shipping, and energy to run the recycling operation. Not to mention the energy and raw materials which were used to build the "extra" monitor in the first place, and the extra shipping weight with every new CPU sold. The most environmentally friendly option is to not build the extra monitor in the first place!

(I'm not even an enviromentally friendly proponent, per se. I just think it's wasteful and ironic that a company that talks about how low-impact their manufacturing is, is neglecting the fact that not manufacturing the monitor in the first place would be even lower environmental impact. Not to mention the financial impact to my wallet!)

I was wondering the same thing...does this represent the great success of the iMac or the lack of another viable option from Apple? If you decide you want a Mac, and don't want the underpowered mini (a fine machine for basic tasks) or the very expensive Mac Pro, you don't have a choice.

I vote lack of another viable option. I want something between the mini and the Pro but I do not want an all in one. Where does that leave me? Switching to Windows after using Macs for 20 years? I'd rather not switch because I don't want to compromise on the OS. But I also don't want to compromise on my hardware needs and wants.

The Mac Pro is not a high-volume seller. It never was. And neither are the high-end workstations from HP and other manufacturers.

But if the Mac Pro isn't losing money... why kill it?

Besides... aren't there some engineers at Apple who use Mac Pros? Aren't they gonna hate to downgrade to an iMac?

That's the rub. We don't know if the continued existence of the Mac Pro is a net benefit for Apple or not. If you look at the iMac synthetic benchmarks you see a very competitive machine that, to me, looks like something Apple engineers could use. A few years ago before Apple added desktop grade CPU and GPUs, and more recently dual internal drives and Thunderbolt the difference was quite large.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

When it comes to marketshare, China and India together have 40% population marketshare, the USA, like Apple, only has 5% population marketshare.

So, should the USA embark on the mother of all baby booms to seize 50% population marketshare, thinning out its resources, thus lowering the average American living standard to the level of the average Chinese and Indians living in rural poverty?

Or should the 5% USA "blip" focus on maintaining its high quality lifestyle which that 40% in India and China can only dream of?

When it comes to significant marketshare, yours is a large slice of the Appleinsider trolls: just like those beige PC box shifters, it's of little consequence.
I've already given you far more attention than you deserve.

No. Still playing with numbers. Market share worldwide is still a factual 5 to 5.3% for Mac OSX vs Windows. Fact not accounting numbers play.

Laptops being all-in-one is a moot point in this discussion. They are that way out of necessity, not as a design choice. They are all-in-one as a secondary effect of a primary requirement, to be portable. A laptop without a screen would be kind of pointless, don't you think?

This is a good point but I'll be a pedant and point out the irony of being able to run a Mac laptop with its lid closed, using only an external monitor as its display.
You can even maintain the portability by using a portable USB display.

But I wish to point out that the market currently prefers the all in one format, be it laptop or otherwise, over the separate pieces (i.e. sales of all laptops lumped together with desktop all in ones are greater than the other PC formats).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggin

Whether consumers would ever upgrade is one thing. But if they think at the time of purchase they want the abiilty to upgrade (even if they never do), then that becomes a factor. Obviously, the biggest deciding factor of Windows vs Mac is the OS itself. But I would not be surprised if configuration was the 2nd or 3rd biggest deciding factor when choosing a computer. If you think you want to be able to add a 2nd internal hard drive, upgrade the video card, etc, you will gravitate towards a Windows PC option.

Another good point, especially as people like to have the option "just in case" for "room to expand". I suspect the typical consumer, however, wouldn't be aware of a video card or hard drive if it slapped them in the face. It's only those of us, with a technical nature, a minority who take interest in such things. Furthermore, the rapid pace of change may make upgrading your machine more expensive than buying anew. Case in point, the rapid move from DDR2 to DDR3 memory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggin

As for business, at my company, you'd be right about not usually upgrading computers. But they DO repair. Failed hard drive or Video card acting up? Replace it, even scavange one from another computer. And, most importantly to this conversion, if your monitor dies, they simply grab another one to replace it. With an iMac, if this happens I either have to get a whole new computer or my computer is out for repair for several days, minimum. That kind of distruption to my productivity is unacceptable.

This is another good point, albeit you should be backing up that hard drive, especially if it's data essential for operating the business. This is the weak point of the current iMacs, it was easier to swap out the hard drive in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggin

With environmental issues. Yes, recycycling is an option. But even if every iMac is eventually recycled (and we know that is no where near reality), there are still enviromental impacts from the container, shipping, and energy to run the recycling operation. Not to mention the energy and raw materials which were used to build the "extra" monitor in the first place, and the extra shipping weight with every new CPU sold. The most environmentally friendly option is to not build the extra monitor in the first place!

I just think it's wasteful and ironic that a company that talks about how low-impact their manufacturing is, is neglecting the fact that not manufacturing the monitor in the first place would be even lower environmental impact. Not to mention the financial impact to my wallet!)

The issue is how long the separate monitor is used compared to the integrated ones. If it's used for more than one system, then yes, integrated monitors are wasteful. If not, then the integrated one is more friendly: one thing to transport instead of two.

Besides, the separate monitor may need replacing if you get a new, more capable video card!